9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to M/s. Savita Polymers, Mahad/Silvassa, who were related persons as per the definition of Section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was alleged by the department that they had not followed the cost construction method for valuation of the goods cleared to related person without payment of appropriate duty. Relying on the CAS 4 certificates given by the assessee, a demand of Rs. 8,99,223/- for the period 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2006 was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and equal amount of penalty was also imposed under Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) against the order passed by the adjudicating authority and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.07.2008 has given any finding on the relationship between the appellants and M/s. Savita Polymers Ltd. and the Commissioner(Appeals) under the impugned order has also not given any finding on the fact that M/s. Savita Polymers ltd, and the appellants are related persons. He further submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 21.7.2008 which was passed after the remand direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) given in Order-in-Appeal dated 19.10.2007 was not in compliance with the direction inasmuch as no quantification of demand can be done without going to the issue of related persons between the two firms. He also mentioned that the Revenue's appeal against the Order-in-Original for enhancing the penalty is bad in law and it was not justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions for quantification of duty after considering reasons submitted by the appellants for variation in the costing data. Then the original authority had passed the order confirming the duty demand as well as imposing the penalty on them and it was observed by the original authority that the appellants had accepted the Order-in-Original on merits and he has not given any further finding on the matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has also not gone into the merits of the case as contended by the appellants on the ground that the lower authority has examined the matter to the extent of submissions made by them as per direction contained in the first Order-in-Appeal. Neither the original authority nor the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
